The ghost of revolution betrayed

Scan page 5

I N W MEI individual men, which neatly side- Labour leftists uncondition: steps any moral or political dilem- swallowing every dot and com mas. of the republican movemer Black feminists have not arri- nraoramme until the hamhe RECIPE for a sure-fire hit on the alternative cinema circuit. Make a film about the sexual and racial contradictions of a post-revolutionary society; direct action feminism uniting white and black women; a zappy narrative embracing women's anti-rape vigilantes; state sanctioned murder of a political activist and its ensuing cover-up, Throw in some stylish and clean violence, make the martyr a black, lesbian, grass-roots organiser from a deprived background; cast extremely vibrant, attractive black and white women for ail the major roles; fill the background with exciting black and rock music (by women's bands of course).

That may be a very cynical presentation. I don't suppose Lizzie Borden's motives in making 'Born in Flames' were in the least unworthy. It's just that a film with apparently all the right ingredients should turn out so disappointing.

It works fine on the level of entertainment, but somehow promises much more.

For anyone interested in the interrelationship of socialist revolution and women's oppression, it not only doesn't provide any answers, but doesn't even ask the questions.

One minute into the film and I was already perplexed. A newsreel tells us we are watching the tenth anniversary celebration of the American social democratic revolution, "the most peaceful revolution in history." You what?

the USA? the same US which hoardes enough bombs to blow up half the galaxy? That US has a peaceful transition to socialism? What were the capitalists, militarists, the IMF, World Bank, Зy Patrick Spilling

Gerry

the CIA, the FBI etc doing while this was going on? I waited expectantly for an answer.

Well, the FBI was continuing, apparently uninterrupted, its surveillance of political activists. CBS also seems to have been left untouched What kind of a revolution was this? What sort of a society had it ushered in?

The general feel was of a Scandinavian-style social democratic welfare _ government. It seems improbable that even a "revolution" of such limited scope, leaving the framework of capitalism intact, would be permitted in the US without a violent backlash from the capitalist class.

This situated the film for me firmly in fantasy-land. The rest really follows on from that. The state machine is liberalised but still intact. The media continues to peddle a slick brand of misinformation. Women's jobs and childcare are the first victims of economic recession. Rape and sexual abuse are still features of everyday life.

What we are offered is not an examination of the real problems that face every socialist revolution in eliminating the oppression of women and blacks, but a "socialist revolution" with no socialist content.

Instead of some insight into some very touchy problems, we get an escapist entertainment based on an ill-thought out feminist dream. Women unite against oppression - without locating where that oppression comes from. steady . right a bit... your way a bit," were being received as normal. Then in a moment of industrial sabotage the civil servants - all of them members of trade unions — threw away the work of ten years and billions of dollars.

At 10.20 am two of them stopped for tea and the third sat down to write a letter to the Times.

The traditional racist cliche that black and white characterisations make bad cinema, (where white is equated with goodness and black with badness) still holds true when you reverse the polarities.

Just making the goodies black women, and the baddies white men might make for easier viewing, but doesn't create much dramatic tension.

There's lots of fast-moving action, but that doesn't make up for the lack of elements of real drama - moral dilemmas, divided loyalties, characters internally torn about what to do.

The only people in the film who seem to suffer any heartsearching at all are the (women) editors of the ruling socialist party's youth newspaper.

Having dismissed the Women's Army as separatist. and therefore counter-revolutionary. they are forced to decide whether to condone the official cover-up of the death of Women's Army founder Adelade Norris in mysterious circumstances in prison or to expose it and place themselves in the camp of 'counter-revolution' They decide with relative case to come down on the side of honesty, decency and sisterhood. It is an easy decision because the conflicting pressures are not shown as equally compelling -there doesn't seem to be much to weigh on the side of the revolution' , no real gains to be sacrificed.

The acclaim the film has received in the trendy left/ feminist milieu reflects rather tellingly the confusion which passes for consensus there. Hovering over the film and over much of what passes for debate on Marxism and feminism, is the ghost of revolution betrayed.

Meanwhile the Sunday Times has revealed that the ban on unions was ordered by CIA officials. The former head of the secret service in Britain told a Sunday Times reporter that the request came from the Pentagon last Wednesday and was put into effect straight away. Later, however, after the government contradicted this version, the man known simply as M - said he had The argument runs thus: Look at existing 'socialist' societies and the position of women in them. Doesn't that prove that socialism is no guarantee of women's liberation. Ihe two are entirely separable. Well, yes, it you ignore history, how those societles came into being, the horrendous bloodletting necessary before the present rulers could consolidate their power over those who made the revolution, if, if, if.

Perhaps the most useful accomplishment of this film will be the laying bare of the assumptions which are the common coin of its most receptive audiences.

The 'revolution' we are told is made when organised labour deserts the traditional bourgeois parties in the US and forms its own class socialist party.

Yet organised labour plays no role in the film. Are we seriously supposed to believe that a labour movement capable of such an enormous political break, and numerically and organisationally the strongest on earth, has no independent reaction to the economic hardships imposed by the regime? Feels no solidarity with the oppressed women and ethnic minority workers? Are women and blacks not part of this labour movement? Do they feel no pull of class solidarity as well as sexual and racial oppression? How was this revolution' accomplished without the support of the majority - women, blacks, etc.?

One would have expected that as the most oppressed, they would have been in the vanguard. How does the party come to be dominated by slimy, Stalinoid white men?

There are two themes in the film which could have explored these contradictions, but instead confirm that the film-maker is outside the struggle she is presenting.

A Latin woman is hassled and CINEMA PRES hizzie, Bolden's JIVI ALLI dentally, been the sharpest critics of the film, objecting to the portrayal of black women, standing alongside white women, pointing guns at black men. Maybe the contradiction would have hit home more had they actually fired and we'd seen the real blood and anguish involved.

The violence is symbolic and harmless. so the issues aren't faced. It put me in mind of the very contemporary sight of 0Q R E ENTS filledwi Mantin 1... she nervous ener Villagervot 'Important, audacio abounding in fresh idea Varu текrin sițonal finiyeal Helen N 'A gloriously fun Time G THE AWAROI WINNINGEFIL LI11L ULILIE LIL VUILLS off and then running for cor Such rhetorical bravery! St political cowardice!

By all means see this film you want a good night out. change from men with guns a fast cars chatting up women a shooting each other in pursuit 'freedom' , anti-communism a the American Way of Life. J don't delude yourself it's { anything to do with politics changing the world.